128 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

KodiakGW, on 30 April 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

Will you people stop making sh11 threads saying the skill tree needs to happen in it's current form while still FAR from any semblance of perfect or what was stated it would be, and calling anyone who doesn't agree with your OPINION a whiner?

Thank You. See, at least I said thank you.

Well, in fairness, you guys went out of your way to call me and others a whiner for simply posting in disagreement with you guys over the last Skill Tree PTS....

So, IDK, while I don't find it terribly useful either way, good for the goose, good for the gander, and all that jazz?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2017 - 06:42 AM.

[vandalhooch]

Yellonet, on 30 April 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

What process? Mentally adapting to things not always being the same?
If you can't do that in a game you likely have some problems

Sometimes I wonder if this forum is just a front for an Asperger's community.

People who put their earned C-bills in mechs/upgrades/engines/weapons will not lose a single C-bill of value during the switch to the new system.

People who put their earned C-bills in modules will lose 50% of that value during the switch.

Both groups are not going to be treated the same.

[Pixel Hunter]

SmokedJag, on 30 April 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

The barrage of sh1tposting defeats any point of PGI using the forums for feedback. I mean, what are they going to see...

-- I don't want big engines nerfed
-- I want more money
-- I didnt ACTUALLY mean I wanted progression instead of Cbills WTF
-- I want to be able to get far more top tier skills than I currently can
-- I want no change in the system whatsoever because I played the current system

None of that is useful even when it's coherent and not soaked in memes and insults. PGI has been explicit that the development direction of the game is to do engine desync to nerf putting giant engines in 'Mechs and to replace the module system - which was never supposed to be permanent and is massively imbalanced - with a skill tree. Deal. With. It.

I don't actually want any of those things, I just want the Quirks not to be totally decimated on IS mechs or a reasonable replacement implemented. all of those things you listed are actually a good thing! but destroying many mediocre and outright bad mechs as a result is awful. I is a giant backslide in balance for these mechs mainly because now you have to level a mech, and even with full skills you often cannot get back to where you once were. Compounding this failure to achieve the original abilities of a mech is the fact that un-quirked mechs get acess to the tree.

or would you prefer me to use a lot of leet speak text to passively call out PGI?

Edited by Gimpy117, 30 April 2017 - 06:50 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yellonet, on 30 April 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

What process? Mentally adapting to things not always being the same?
If you can't do that in a game you likely have some problems

Sometimes I wonder if this forum is just a front for an Asperger's community.

As a member of the Asperger's community (and I am hardly the lone member on these forums who is on the spectrum, or has family on the spectrum), I really don't appreciate this kind of outdated and prejudicial comment.

Just FYI. Not using it as an insult in the future might be a slightly more enlightened approach.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 April 2017 - 06:49 AM.

[cazidin]

Honestly, at this point PGI HAS fixed the C-bill problem and I'll admit they actually listened there and did something good but the skill tree itself? Is still a maze of hexagons that new players wouldn't have the vaguest idea of how to properly navigate when even your VETERAN players find this mess convoluted. Streamlining is not a bad thing, and if you really fear mechs becoming OP when we can min/max, which we'll do REGARDLESS of how many speed bumps there are, then I should kindly remind you that if there are fewer nodes total, than PGI will reduce the number of skills we can have accordingly.

With that being said, are there any arguments for keeping Hill Climb, Improved Gyros or the always useful, borderline overpowered skill, ARM SPEED?

[Bishop Steiner]

cazidin, on 30 April 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

With that being said, are there any arguments for keeping Hill Climb, Improved Gyros or the always useful, borderline overpowered skill, ARM SPEED?

players who don't live with armlock permanently on might find some use fo rit, yes.... or who actually have guns in their arms.

Which of course means... none of the Comp Scene, at the very least has any need for it.

That said....I do think that things a mech really can't use, like arm stuff on a BNC-3E? Should just be greyed out, at least and able to be skipped. For mechs that can use it? Murkier. If we put it off to the side, it simply improves the linearity of minmaxing, which PGI is trying to cut back. So I can see it being there. Again, except for mechs that literally get no possible functionality from it.

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

players who don't live with armlock permanently on might find some use fo rit, yes.... or who actually have guns in their arms.

Which of course means... none of the Comp Scene, at the very least has any need for it.

That said....I do think that things a mech really can't use, like arm stuff on a BNC-3E? Should just be greyed out, at least and able to be skipped. For mechs that can use it? Murkier. If we put it off to the side, it simply improves the linearity of minmaxing, which PGI is trying to cut back. So I can see it being there. Again, except for mechs that literally get no possible functionality from it.

How much is the arm speed bonus relative to how fast we more our arms now? Is the difference in speed noticeable and does it convey any benefit for the average or competitive player? I agree with you on graying out certain nodes but... why not just streamline in the arm speed bonus, for mechs with arms, and then remove the node entirely? Same with Hill Climb and Improved Gyros.

[PFC Carsten]

Yellonet, on 29 April 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Would you people stop making sh1t threads about the skill tree already?

Welcome to the club bro.

Yellonet, on 29 April 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

But in order to make this into a better game, changes NEED to happen, and you can't always wait for the change to be perfect before you implement it.I'm sure that PGI is willing to change things after the skill tree has been released so it's not the end of the world just because there are some potential problems at first.

After all the damage Long Tom did to the endgame-called-faction-play, I am not willing to be my investment on it.

[Mcgral18]

Moadebe, on 30 April 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

I honestly think the "I gotta click on 91 different things so its bad" argument has got to be the worst one by far. Like you are going to sprain a finger or something....

You can feel free to click ten THOUSAND times to level my robots


I am not interested

[Queen of England]

There are apparently large number of people in the community who believe that change for the worse is better than no change at all.

[MrJeffers]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

I'm saying...exactly what I said, in specific response to this comment:


Kindly show me where PGI has attempted to fix the skill tree before this time. I'll wait.

Quit being so obtuse. The lack of a track record for fixing "placeholders" IS the problem, and you know it.
The entire skill system was put in as a placeholder in BETA.
It's been revised *once* to reduce the boosts on basics.
Pinpoint skill has been useless for years. Paul mentioned he was going to change it to be a health boost for equipment in a town meeting, 2( ?) years ago. Still unchanged.

Clan ACs. Placeholder for ammo swaps. Still unchanged.

Long Tom. Broken for a year (more?).

Balance changes on chassis, quirks, weapons - glacial pace and frequently off the mark of either over boosted or over nerfed and remain that way for extended periods.

A lack of track record fixing things in a timely manor is exactly the problem. Thinking that somehow this system is going to change with this skill tree is just wishful thinking.

[oldradagast]

MrJeffers, on 30 April 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

Quit being so obtuse. The lack of a track record for fixing "placeholders" IS the problem, and you know it.

Exactly. PGI has a horrible track record of fixing anything when needed, much less doing any real balancing or development work. They slap stuff together and shove it out the door, letting serious problems fester for months or years before acting - assuming they act at all. Look at the Pinpoint skill. That, right there, is the summary of PGI's "fast response time" to fixing issues. A skill that has done nothing in years that's part of a place-holder skill system that has existed for almost 5 years, and the only way it's going to be "fixed" is by them ramming an even WORSE skill system into the game.

It's laughable idiocy. If PGI promptly and intelligently fixed problems soon after they showed up, we'd be able to say that they'll fix skill maze issues quickly. But they won't, and if they cared at all about the problems in the skill maze, they would have ALREADY fixed them when it was in testing.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Which of course means... none of the Comp Scene, at the very least has any need for it.

Better players, comp scene or not, largely eschew the gyro module because they can deal with the screen shake, as the center aim point doesn't move regardless of the scenario bouncing around. If you don't try to "keep up" with the screen shake, you're fine.

Most better players ime don't bother with hill climb because there are better modules for assisting situational awareness, or denying situational awareness to opponents, which is always a factor in matches, whereas getting up a hill a smidge faster is situational.

And I'm not getting the point on arm-lock. Are you saying comp players don't toggle between armlock on/off so arm speed wouldn't be relevant to them?

Anyway, I've seen advanced zoom in comp-play, so it's really more the player than the scene imo. The better players (comp players or not) seem to rely on things like AZ alot less, if at all, but I can see its appeal. I used to use the hell out of it

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Yellonet, on 29 April 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Would you people stop making sh1t threads about the skill tree already?

Yes, the skill tree isn't perfect, nothing is. Get over it!

But in order to make this into a better game, changes NEED to happen, and you can't always wait for the change to be perfect before you implement it.

I'm sure that PGI is willing to change things after the skill tree has been released so it's not the end of the world just because there are some potential problems at first.

The sad thing is that there seems to be some vocal people around here that don't understand that you can't have change and still let everything be the same, then it wouldn't be change.

So, please, get over yourself and stop that entitled whining about not having this or that be the same as before when skill tree goes live.

Adapt and move on, it's going to be the same for everyone.

Would you STOP defending "change for the sake of change" even when the change is a fuc king dumpster fire?????????????

[Bishop Steiner]

MrJeffers, on 30 April 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

Quit being so obtuse. The lack of a track record for fixing "placeholders" IS the problem, and you know it.
The entire skill system was put in as a placeholder in BETA.
It's been revised *once* to reduce the boosts on basics.
Pinpoint skill has been useless for years. Paul mentioned he was going to change it to be a health boost for equipment in a town meeting, 2( ?) years ago. Still unchanged.

Clan ACs. Placeholder for ammo swaps. Still unchanged.

Long Tom. Broken for a year (more?).

Balance changes on chassis, quirks, weapons - glacial pace and frequently off the mark of either over boosted or over nerfed and remain that way for extended periods.

A lack of track record fixing things in a timely manor is exactly the problem. Thinking that somehow this system is going to change with this skill tree is just wishful thinking.

so....no track record for a Skill Tree?

OK then. Maybe if people would be more accurate in their posts, PGI or anyone else might give them more consideration.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lukoi Banacek, on 30 April 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

Better players, comp scene or not, largely eschew the gyro module because they can deal with the screen shake, as the center aim point doesn't move regardless of the scenario bouncing around. If you don't try to "keep up" with the screen shake, you're fine.

Most better players ime don't bother with hill climb because there are better modules for assisting situational awareness, or denying situational awareness to opponents, which is always a factor in matches, whereas getting up a hill a smidge faster is situational.

And I'm not getting the point on arm-lock. Are you saying comp players don't toggle between armlock on/off so arm speed wouldn't be relevant to them?

Anyway, I've seen advanced zoom in comp-play, so it's really more the player than the scene imo. The better players (comp players or not) seem to rely on things like AZ alot less, if at all, but I can see its appeal. I used to use the hell out of it

I'm saying the vast majority of the comp scene lean on builds that use the arms as shields, as often as possible. Hence all the Warhammers, Hellbringers, Battlemasters and anything one could use, with empty stump arms. KDK3 forces it withthe Gauss/Peeps, etc, but it's certainly not the preferred state.

So... you still just stalking my posts to look for any one thing to remove from context to complain about? Good to know. Especially since I don't recall commenting on AZ, HC or Gyro stuff, at all. Huh.

[Lukoi Banacek]

The skill system is the placeholder for the skill tree. It's different versions of the same grind/leveling program for the game. How is he being inaccurate?

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

I'm saying the vast majority of the comp scene lean on builds that use the arms as shields, as often as possible. Hence all the Warhammers, Hellbringers, Battlemasters and anything one could use, with empty stump arms. KDK3 forces it withthe Gauss/Peeps, etc, but it's certainly not the preferred state.

So... you still just stalking my posts to look for any one thing to remove from context to complain about? Good to know. Especially since I don't recall commenting on AZ, HC or Gyro stuff, at all. Huh.

We're sharing the same forums, it's got nothing to do with stalking you. I mentioned Gyro, AZ, HC as examples that fall within a similar vein. You shouldn't assume every conversation point is about you personally, when it's about the discussion.

Btw...I didn't complain. I asked what you meant by the arm-lock comment.

[Yellonet]

oldradagast, on 30 April 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

This thread is a perfect example of "new speak" and how it dominates discussion these days. Facts are relabeled "whining" and people who bring up facts are called "whiners," "special snowflakes," or some other snotty term that refuses to actually address the facts. Then, people go out and vote like idiots, support the skill maze over common sense, etc. FACTS ARE NOT WHINING.

People have laid out a mountain of FACTS regarding why the skill maze is an utter failure:

• The UI is horrible; too many clicks, insane arrangement of skills, etc.
  
• The arrangement of skills makes no sense and forces people to grind through dead nodes. That is just utter crap from a game design perspective, and GRIND is neither CONTENT nor CHOICE.
  
• In the end, there are only a handful of viable builds after you grind through them, thus defeating the claimed design goal of "encouraging build diversity." Just more GRIND and cookie-cutter meta mechs and meta builds.
  
• The respec cost is a total insult, further discourages build diversity, and has no place in a game like this, where customizing your mechs and changing them regularly is a huge part of the fun.
  
• The removal of large quirks from so many poor mechs utterly kills them. You'd have to be insane to think that stripping all the quirks off an Atlas and putting it up against a quirk-free Kodiak is somehow now "balanced" because, "uh, both of them get to pick skills off the skill maze." Yeah, and at any given point in that skill maze, the Kodiak will still wipe the floor with the now quirk-free Atlas.
  
• The engine decoupling is idiocy and accomplishes nothing. All it does is further reduce viable mechs and builds since now you no longer have a choice in how mobile your mech is. PGI will tell you that, and they will determine your mech's role, not you. How the hell is that fun or "encouraging mech diversity?!"

The rest of the OP's post is just drivel. Change is not always good, facts are not whining, expecting something for our money is not "entitled" in a negative way, and if PGI was interested in "adjusting things" to fix this mess they are creating, they wouldn't be creating the mess and ignoring all valid feedback!

"Horrible", "insane", "utter crap". Yup, lots of FACTS here.
There might be some actual fact in there but if so it's obscured by your not so subtle OPINIONS.

I haven't relabelled any facts at all, but I guess if you confuse subjective statements such as your "The engine decoupling is idiocy and accomplishes nothing" with facts I can see why someone would think that.

[Insanity09]

Though I suspect I'm being trolled, I'll make one further effort.

Bishop, are you seriously arguing that because they made no effort to fix a broken skill, pinpoint (and arm reflex, in many cases), for years, that they have no track record for delays and avoiding fixing things?

That makes no logical sense.

Their lack of fixing skill tree problems for long periods of time is the track record.
A track record, in this parlance, is the past history of observed behavior which can then be used to predict the likely behavior of the future.

In this case, the analysis goes something like this...
Question: when problems and flaws are brought to light, especially skill tree related, how quickly does PGI respond to and address the issues?
Answer: it takes them years to fix it in any fashion (the new skill tree is the fix).
Question: are there observable problems with the proposed new skill system?
Answer: yes, the exact same problem. irrelevant/useless and undesirable skills exist in the new skill tree. (it has other problems too, but for here...)
Question: given the past behavior, what is a reasonable expectation for how quickly PGI will fix/adjust the problems in the new skill tree?
Answer: Years, if ever. (because they didn't address the original problem for an extended period of time, and their proposed solution had the exact same problem included)

Edit for clarity

Edited by Insanity09, 30 April 2017 - 10:34 AM.

[Dodger79]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

I'm saying...exactly what I said, in specific response to this comment:


Kindly show me where PGI has attempted to fix the skill tree before this time. I'll wait.

They haven't even tried to fix it for 4-5 years. In my world this is a lousy track record, keeping sth completely useless ingame and still make people pay for despite it doing nothing (pinpoint skill, i am looking at you).

In this analogy a craftsman, who simply does nothing would be the best craftsman in the world just because he never fails.